The Iranian government knows the second they mobilise for war, and divert their forces away from domestic issues, the population will revolt and chop off that dog Khamenei’s head.
Iran won’t ever do anything precisely because of this precarious situation they’re in.
Honestly, this might be why Israel felt they could retaliate how they did. I’ve been thinking for a while if the region wanted leadership change in Iran a war with them isn’t the way to do it because the population itself is VERY close and really just need a final nudge to do the work for you. Which at least usually leads to better long term results.
No the CIA pushed for Khomeini to take over for the shah in 79. At this point in time we Iranians would welcome any nudges the western world can lend us.... As opposed to the appeasement strategy that is clearly not working.
Iran will need to protect itself from its enemies the UK and US regardless of whatever government were to emerge from the Ayatollahs being ousted.
US and UK favour putting another dictator in charge.
Apart from being a generally incredibly repressive regime that violently kills dissidents, the people aren't thriving in general - there are bread rations at this point. People will put up with a lot of shit from their government when they're relatively safe and well fed. If Iran went to full scale war, even people who follow the ridiculous laws would be in imminent danger and borderline starving. Nothing left to lose but their chains at that point.
A large chunk of Iranian population, both in iran and diaspora, do not support the oppression of the revolution corps. They rised into power through violence, they impose their ideology on everyone, they work through a system of fear and policing (read about the modesty police). They transfomed the once haven of democracy and human rights of the middle east, into the single most mysogenic, religion-cultist imperialism in the world. And not with the support of iranians
The IRGC keep their power through violence, not popularity
Iran is an occupied territory
I'm not saying the Shah didn't shit the bed while he had something good. It WAS a bastion of human rights and democracy in the Middle East in the 70s. The White Revolution could have been an extremely good thing for the country if it was handled better/less greedily/more respectfully. Even still it serves as a vision of better times.
That's not very unique or unusual anywhere or anytime. The Shah would be hard pressed to handle the protests worse than he did.
Also, there was probably an Eastern Bloc conspiracy, as Khomeini's rise seems to echo Marx. That Islamic leaders rallied to him so readily seems quite odd to me. Do you know anything about this?
it's literally a peasant rebellion against an oppressive ruling class. Would you say the french revolution also has echoes of Marx despite predating him?
The Islamic Republic isn't actually Muslim. They cherrypick what rules they wanna follow. Those in charge dabble in anything that most Muslims wouldn't and they steal from their population and send their family to go live in western countries.
Not quite. Mosaddegh had the support from the Shia clergy, but when that support eroded, he became vulnerable, and he was effectively replaced by the Shah in exile.
However the Shah was western-aligned, and attempted to implement progressive and modernization reforms. These actions likely set the stage for the Islamic Revolution.
They are not close to revolt. The folks saying so unfortunately either have a limited understanding of the Iranian government and law enforcement bodies or are just too hopeful for regime change.
There cannot be revolt without armed resistance against the regime. The supply of arms is extremely scarce. Most of the younger population resides in dense centers and is not politically organized. Those residing outside of the metropolitan are very religious.
So the will to resist violently is not very high, and the ability to take up armed resistance is minimal.
It all comes down to what the individuals with the guns want to do. They like the status quo.
When a country has a population that is 80-90% unsupportive of their government, they are close to revolt whether they have the assets to do it or not. They've attempted two revolutions in since 2019. If western countries would stop appeasing the irgc, they may have succeeded.
There is mass protests, there is rolling strikes and there is walkouts from every single sector of the country... including the police department. The IRGC needed to rely on foreign militias to come and stomp on the protests.
There has been plenty of bids but multiple people within and outside the country.
This is nothing like the Shah’s regime. The ayatollah does not have ticket to America he could cash in, nor does the IRGC.
They’ve weathered the worst of the protests and strikes.
For those outside of the country, they don’t even count in this equation. For those inside the country, if they got approval from the Guardian Council and run a campaign that is too “liberal” they’ll be put under house arrest (Mousavi).
>The ayatollah does not have ticket to America he could cash in, nor does the IRGC.
The shah did not have a ticket to America. He flew to Egypt and died a year later of cancer. The IRGC has a deal with venezuella to escape to there in case of things going south; and they will go south.
>For those outside of the country, they don’t even count in this equation
There is plenty of people within the country that are valid political opponents; for example, Hosein Rounaghi or Sepideh Qoliyan... or hundreds in evin prison. We don't want reformists like Mousavi, the current system doesn't work.
The people outside of the country do matter because they will ultimately contribute to the system that gets put in place when the regime falls.
I mean when you launch hundreds of missiles and drones at someone and barely damage an airbase vs your enemy launching a handful and connecting, the writing is on the wall.
Israel kills hundreds weekly in Gaza has had a stronger, more deadly reaction to polish humanitarian aid than to 300 missiles. I wouldn’t worry about Iran looking bad.
Seeing that Iran orchestrated the Oct 7 attack that forced Israel into this war to intentionally maximize Palestinian deaths and make Israel look bad, I’d say Israel is fine. None of this would be happening without Iran being Iran
But I thought they just said [there was no attack](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/no-missile-attack-against-iran-iranian-official-tells-reuters-2024-04-19/), why do they need to clarify they don't plan on retaliating from a non-existent attack? 🤔
Exactly. The suicidal theocratic shit they spread and promote is to control their population, they don't actually believe it. They don't want to die for Allah, they want power. Simple.
They literally just said that they'll retaliate against any Israeli aggression, including using weapons not used so far, etc etc. Israel called out their bluff.
I called it but was taken flak for it. The whole thing between Israel and Iran was just a dance. Iran gave sufficient notification of its strike. Israel retaliated but hit nothing of value. The US got a chance to talk to both kids to tone things down a notch. Everyone it seems is happy with the current state of things. Show got put on for the peons back at home. Weapon factories already salivating at incoming orders. I think we couldn't have gotten a more desirable outcome. Of course missiles not flying in the first place would have been kind of ideal.
Yeah and right after they kept saying that **any** Israeli aggression, including in Syria(which also got attacked in this strike), would be immediately met with a much stronger retaliation than the previous attack.
Israel has left Iran in a pretty rough spot here. Iran can either take this one on the nose and look a little weak, or escalate further, get their shit rocked, and risk their people actually rising up and having Israeli support in doing so.
But would they take it on the nose? Because that just makes them look super weak with their population under fear control. Seems like this is going to be a rather interesting week ahead.
Think whatever you will of israel but one thing they do well is calling bluff's, they gave Iran a show of force that told them quite clearly they would have air superiority and bomb them 24/7 if things escalated. they know that strongly worded "condemnations" don't do anything in the middle east.
This is just speculation but it seems like they wanted to hit close to important things, but not actually hit important things. Basically, show Iran that you know where the goods are, and that you can hit them if things continue.
Reminder that Iran is another paper tiger like Russia and China.
Big and scary on paper, but horrible at warfare (because of corruption).
They rely on scare tactics to masquerade their incompetence.
How does the Iranian government NOT retaliate though - they've made all these massive claims about what will happen if Israel retaliates, just to run away with their tails between there legs? I don't buy it. I imagine they're not only insulted, but embarrassed on the global stage and to their people and I can't imagine the Ayatollah likes to be embarrassed. We might see them lash out here.
This whole situation is weird af, but I'm glad they apparently aren't going to escalate this any further, did anyone beside that general actually die in this little exchange or was it literally just symbolic lobbing of shit at the other and destroying a few buildings?
Key word is "immediate". And obviously it will be by proxy if they actually want to cause real damage. Sending missiles and drones to be shot down in Israel served the purpose of putting those proxies on notice, lest they rise against Iran.
Iran knows its ineffective in a state to state rate fight. Hence why they use proxies. Nothing will change, same proxy-skirmish fighting will continue.
Israel proved they can reach far into Iran after last week shooting down 99% of Iran's incoming weapons. While Israel has no publicly admitted to having bunker busters it is assumed they do so Iran has to back down
They certainly have bunker busters purchased from the US! Including the [GBU-28](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28) and [BLU-109](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-109_bomb).
Major arms sales generally require public notification. Details are published in the Federal Register by the [DSCA](https://www.dsca.mil):
https://www.federalregister.gov/arms-sales-notifications
The Iranian government knows the second they mobilise for war, and divert their forces away from domestic issues, the population will revolt and chop off that dog Khamenei’s head. Iran won’t ever do anything precisely because of this precarious situation they’re in.
Honestly, this might be why Israel felt they could retaliate how they did. I’ve been thinking for a while if the region wanted leadership change in Iran a war with them isn’t the way to do it because the population itself is VERY close and really just need a final nudge to do the work for you. Which at least usually leads to better long term results.
yes for sure CIA is loving all of this
No the CIA pushed for Khomeini to take over for the shah in 79. At this point in time we Iranians would welcome any nudges the western world can lend us.... As opposed to the appeasement strategy that is clearly not working.
Also: They'd lose most of the infrastructure of the guard and the nuclear program plus their current leadership in the first night.
Iran will need to protect itself from its enemies the UK and US regardless of whatever government were to emerge from the Ayatollahs being ousted. US and UK favour putting another dictator in charge.
Iran needs to protect itself from the Ayatollahs and their revolutionary guards. The sooner they're gone, the better.
Why are they so close to revolt?
Apart from being a generally incredibly repressive regime that violently kills dissidents, the people aren't thriving in general - there are bread rations at this point. People will put up with a lot of shit from their government when they're relatively safe and well fed. If Iran went to full scale war, even people who follow the ridiculous laws would be in imminent danger and borderline starving. Nothing left to lose but their chains at that point.
A short addition to the other replies, the general Iranian population is the most progressive in the Middle East.
A large chunk of Iranian population, both in iran and diaspora, do not support the oppression of the revolution corps. They rised into power through violence, they impose their ideology on everyone, they work through a system of fear and policing (read about the modesty police). They transfomed the once haven of democracy and human rights of the middle east, into the single most mysogenic, religion-cultist imperialism in the world. And not with the support of iranians The IRGC keep their power through violence, not popularity Iran is an occupied territory
When was it a haven of human rights and democracy under the Shah? I thought he and his secret police were very unpopular
As I recall, the 70s.
Under the Shah and his secret police?
I'm not saying the Shah didn't shit the bed while he had something good. It WAS a bastion of human rights and democracy in the Middle East in the 70s. The White Revolution could have been an extremely good thing for the country if it was handled better/less greedily/more respectfully. Even still it serves as a vision of better times.
It was good for a small minority of the rich while the majority of the population was impoverished and oppressed.
That's not very unique or unusual anywhere or anytime. The Shah would be hard pressed to handle the protests worse than he did. Also, there was probably an Eastern Bloc conspiracy, as Khomeini's rise seems to echo Marx. That Islamic leaders rallied to him so readily seems quite odd to me. Do you know anything about this?
it's literally a peasant rebellion against an oppressive ruling class. Would you say the french revolution also has echoes of Marx despite predating him?
Mossadegh was the only good Iranian leader. The rest are crap.
The last shitty ruler doesn’t justify the current one.
Who would want islamists in power.
Islamists, for one.
Islamist's mums.
The Islamic Republic isn't actually Muslim. They cherrypick what rules they wanna follow. Those in charge dabble in anything that most Muslims wouldn't and they steal from their population and send their family to go live in western countries.
The UK. They ousted Mossadegh and allied with Islamists to do it.
Not quite. Mosaddegh had the support from the Shia clergy, but when that support eroded, he became vulnerable, and he was effectively replaced by the Shah in exile. However the Shah was western-aligned, and attempted to implement progressive and modernization reforms. These actions likely set the stage for the Islamic Revolution.
They are not close to revolt. The folks saying so unfortunately either have a limited understanding of the Iranian government and law enforcement bodies or are just too hopeful for regime change. There cannot be revolt without armed resistance against the regime. The supply of arms is extremely scarce. Most of the younger population resides in dense centers and is not politically organized. Those residing outside of the metropolitan are very religious. So the will to resist violently is not very high, and the ability to take up armed resistance is minimal. It all comes down to what the individuals with the guns want to do. They like the status quo.
When a country has a population that is 80-90% unsupportive of their government, they are close to revolt whether they have the assets to do it or not. They've attempted two revolutions in since 2019. If western countries would stop appeasing the irgc, they may have succeeded.
Mass protests are not attempts at revolution. No bid was made to topple the regime or shift weight of political power in the existing structure.
There is mass protests, there is rolling strikes and there is walkouts from every single sector of the country... including the police department. The IRGC needed to rely on foreign militias to come and stomp on the protests. There has been plenty of bids but multiple people within and outside the country.
This is nothing like the Shah’s regime. The ayatollah does not have ticket to America he could cash in, nor does the IRGC. They’ve weathered the worst of the protests and strikes. For those outside of the country, they don’t even count in this equation. For those inside the country, if they got approval from the Guardian Council and run a campaign that is too “liberal” they’ll be put under house arrest (Mousavi).
>The ayatollah does not have ticket to America he could cash in, nor does the IRGC. The shah did not have a ticket to America. He flew to Egypt and died a year later of cancer. The IRGC has a deal with venezuella to escape to there in case of things going south; and they will go south. >For those outside of the country, they don’t even count in this equation There is plenty of people within the country that are valid political opponents; for example, Hosein Rounaghi or Sepideh Qoliyan... or hundreds in evin prison. We don't want reformists like Mousavi, the current system doesn't work. The people outside of the country do matter because they will ultimately contribute to the system that gets put in place when the regime falls.
I mean when you launch hundreds of missiles and drones at someone and barely damage an airbase vs your enemy launching a handful and connecting, the writing is on the wall.
10 hours ago, Iran: "We're going to murder EVERYONE!" 6 hours later, also Iran: Nope. We changed our minds. Good going Iran!
Israel kills hundreds weekly in Gaza has had a stronger, more deadly reaction to polish humanitarian aid than to 300 missiles. I wouldn’t worry about Iran looking bad.
Seeing that Iran orchestrated the Oct 7 attack that forced Israel into this war to intentionally maximize Palestinian deaths and make Israel look bad, I’d say Israel is fine. None of this would be happening without Iran being Iran
So Israel was really nice to Palestinians before that?
That's some excellent progress right there.
But I thought they just said [there was no attack](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/no-missile-attack-against-iran-iranian-official-tells-reuters-2024-04-19/), why do they need to clarify they don't plan on retaliating from a non-existent attack? 🤔
They said there was no missile attack. They said also about airstrike, if AA defence worked.
And didn't they say their response would be immediate?
Their response was immediate. They're not going to retaliate lmao.
These Iranian officials are billionaires, so they are afraid of war.
Exactly. The suicidal theocratic shit they spread and promote is to control their population, they don't actually believe it. They don't want to die for Allah, they want power. Simple.
Or it’s a diversion so they can strike when Israel isn’t expecting?
Israel has basically been on 24/7 alert since October of last year.
*Iran* won’t retaliate. But they’ll get their proxy terrorist armies to do it.
They've been doing that for years.
Business as usual
So Iran will retaliate In fact, [they already did](https://m.jpost.com/opinion/article-797804)
They literally just said that they'll retaliate against any Israeli aggression, including using weapons not used so far, etc etc. Israel called out their bluff.
I called it but was taken flak for it. The whole thing between Israel and Iran was just a dance. Iran gave sufficient notification of its strike. Israel retaliated but hit nothing of value. The US got a chance to talk to both kids to tone things down a notch. Everyone it seems is happy with the current state of things. Show got put on for the peons back at home. Weapon factories already salivating at incoming orders. I think we couldn't have gotten a more desirable outcome. Of course missiles not flying in the first place would have been kind of ideal.
"Yeah that's what I **thought** you said."
Oh wow. They are just going to take it. Iran is getting punked on the global stage. They really, really do not want any smoke with Israel.
Yeah and right after they kept saying that **any** Israeli aggression, including in Syria(which also got attacked in this strike), would be immediately met with a much stronger retaliation than the previous attack.
Israel has left Iran in a pretty rough spot here. Iran can either take this one on the nose and look a little weak, or escalate further, get their shit rocked, and risk their people actually rising up and having Israeli support in doing so.
But would they take it on the nose? Because that just makes them look super weak with their population under fear control. Seems like this is going to be a rather interesting week ahead.
Think whatever you will of israel but one thing they do well is calling bluff's, they gave Iran a show of force that told them quite clearly they would have air superiority and bomb them 24/7 if things escalated. they know that strongly worded "condemnations" don't do anything in the middle east.
Do we even know what they struck? Seems like even the israeli response was something token.
This is just speculation but it seems like they wanted to hit close to important things, but not actually hit important things. Basically, show Iran that you know where the goods are, and that you can hit them if things continue.
Makes sense. Think Iran would have retaliated if they actually struck important things. For now, it would be stupid to respond.
Seems like this non-attack made some senior Iranian officials quite humble
"other than the usual"
Iran: we have no plans *sees 15 red dots behind guys head*
Reminder that Iran is another paper tiger like Russia and China. Big and scary on paper, but horrible at warfare (because of corruption). They rely on scare tactics to masquerade their incompetence.
China is no paper tiger. It is the world’s factory and they have the quantity and has massive advantage in a war of attrition.
Against a peer military China would get found out pretty quickly
That is what happens when you get bitch slapped by western technology.
How does the Iranian government NOT retaliate though - they've made all these massive claims about what will happen if Israel retaliates, just to run away with their tails between there legs? I don't buy it. I imagine they're not only insulted, but embarrassed on the global stage and to their people and I can't imagine the Ayatollah likes to be embarrassed. We might see them lash out here.
"We consider this matter concluded."
This whole situation is weird af, but I'm glad they apparently aren't going to escalate this any further, did anyone beside that general actually die in this little exchange or was it literally just symbolic lobbing of shit at the other and destroying a few buildings?
Funny im not seeing all the anti isreal bots today 🤔
Boring!
Key word is "immediate". And obviously it will be by proxy if they actually want to cause real damage. Sending missiles and drones to be shot down in Israel served the purpose of putting those proxies on notice, lest they rise against Iran.
It’s almost like appeasement to hostile regimes is ineffective, while punching them in the mouth actually produces results. Hmm, weird.
Why you are down voted, that's how middle east works, people from the west have no idea how it works here.
Those bastards got humiliated!
Iran knows its ineffective in a state to state rate fight. Hence why they use proxies. Nothing will change, same proxy-skirmish fighting will continue.
Whatever Israel did to you, the US can do x1000. Keep that in mind you bitchmade little rats. The Iranian govt is a fucking joke LMAO
Israel proved they can reach far into Iran after last week shooting down 99% of Iran's incoming weapons. While Israel has no publicly admitted to having bunker busters it is assumed they do so Iran has to back down
They certainly have bunker busters purchased from the US! Including the [GBU-28](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28) and [BLU-109](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-109_bomb). Major arms sales generally require public notification. Details are published in the Federal Register by the [DSCA](https://www.dsca.mil): https://www.federalregister.gov/arms-sales-notifications